Poll: Europeans Less Fearful of AI Than Americans and Britons

While American and British commentators increasingly frame artificial intelligence as a threat, residents of continental Europe view the technology considerably more calmly. A new survey by research firm Mandate, covered on September 6, 2026 by Tibor Dessewffy in "Rzeczpospolita", reveals a gulf in how AI is perceived on both sides of the Atlantic, and even within Europe itself.

The gap is all the more striking given that the dominant tone of public debate would suggest the opposite. American and British media publish stories daily about job losses, algorithmic surveillance, or the existential risks tied to increasingly powerful models. Yet Mandate's survey shows that skepticism toward AI runs deepest precisely there, not in Europe, which is often portrayed as more cautious on regulation.

Where the gap comes from

Dessewffy points to several explanations for the divergence. The first and simplest: in Europe, job losses from AI automation have not yet materialized on the scale seen in American discourse, so for many Europeans the technology's costs remain hypothetical rather than felt.

A second factor is local resistance to infrastructure. In the United States, disputes over data centers, water use and electricity consumption have turned into loud, widely covered neighborhood conflicts. In Europe such protests have not yet reached a comparable scale, which translates into less hostility toward the idea of living near AI infrastructure.

The author also notes a clear gender gap visible across all the countries surveyed: men consistently rate AI more positively than women, regardless of whether the country is the United States, the United Kingdom, or continental Europe.

Superintelligence's labradors

The piece's title nods to a now-famous exchange between Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson on the StarTalk podcast. Musk argued there that if humanity is lucky, superintelligent AI will treat people the way we today treat labrador retrievers, well cared for but entirely subordinate. Tyson added that in such a scenario AI would domesticate us, and Musk agreed.

We won't be like a labrador dog if we're lucky - Elon Musk, StarTalk

That vision, in which work becomes optional and money loses its meaning amid the abundance generated by superintelligent systems within the next five to ten years, contrasts with another perspective cited in the article: that of Pope Leo XIV, who stresses the need to protect human dignity in an age of all-knowing machines.

Two regulatory models

Dessewffy draws a clear dividing line between two approaches to AI policy. The Anglo-American model relies on restricting a technology already presumed harmful, reflecting the high level of distrust seen in US and UK data. The European model, by contrast, involves building safeguards around a technology that is still being evaluated, whose social effects have not yet been conclusively determined.

This difference directly shapes how law is being written in both regions. Europe is already working on further elements of the EU AI Act and national oversight bodies, but the tone of debate remains more measured than in Anglo-Saxon countries, where calls for sharply slowing AI development are becoming more frequent.

Where does Poland stand

Among continental European countries, Poland sits close to the middle of the pack. 43 percent of Polish respondents give a neutral answer on AI, close to France's result (44 percent) and slightly lower than Hungary and Italy (45 percent each), but higher than Germany (41 percent). This distribution suggests Polish respondents are still withholding a firm opinion rather than declaring either enthusiasm or rejection of the technology.

For Polish companies and public institutions, this data carries practical weight. A neutral public stance means opinion is not yet locked into either uncritical enthusiasm or outright rejection, leaving room to shape the debate through concrete deployments, education and transparent rules for using AI before attitudes solidify for good.

The author concludes that Europe still has time to craft balanced regulation before public opinion fully crystallizes one way or the other. In his view, the real challenge is not choosing between blind enthusiasm and panic, but establishing constructive rules for how AI operates before someone else does it for Europeans.